[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:31:58 -0500

At 04:18 PM 11/10/00 +0100, Miloslav Nic wrote:
>So I can use all XML features (as an author) and just before publishing 
>push it through a "canonicator" if I want to be sure not to have some
>problems


And maybe if that takes off, we can have Canonical XML parsers which only
read Canonical XML.

Thoughts?
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Simplicity of XPath
• Next by Date: RE: Simplicity of XPath
• Previous by thread: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by thread: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread